Jean AKA Jeannie AKA Jeanie, is a film, book and magazine reviewer for a national magazine. Most of Jean’s work is done through e-mail, which means he does not have to go into the office.
On a trip to find a gift for his girlfriend, Jean found a empty Genie Bottle. Upon picking up this bottle Jean became the bottle’s new genie powered occupant. Not only was Jean turned into a genie, but the bottle turned him into what he believed a genie of the bottle to look like, which due to his fascination with a classic 60s TV show turned into a bust young Blonde female.

I wonder if they’re going to assume it’s Jean in drag somehow from the overwhelmingly sexist tone she has. Or, things will go the simple route and they’ll presume anyone this shallow is someone Jean DESERVES. Or think she’s a victim of self categorization.

Also, Jean just came a BIIIIIG error! She said ‘in our DNA.’ not ‘their DNA.’ Do I want to know what they’re going to think of her for that one?

And Jean isn’t as right as she thinks, she is like everyone else, but only as far as “I’ll say or think anything as long as it absolves me of any sense of guilt.”

She did go right onto women also sleeping around so they might take it as our in humans all sleep around. Not that I agree with it but I can see it easily being ignored in favour of shoving her in the whole she dug for herself.

Jean in drag? No way. Besides, he’s standing right across the room, where everyone can see him. Naw, they’ll probably just assume that she’s been totally brainwashed by “Jean”, or else that she’s just that stupid.

And the term “our DNA” can easily be interpreted as meaning, “all humans”. So it’s not a fatal slip.

It might not be a total fatal slip, but it should leave some wonderings going on in their minds. The way he said it makes it sound like he includes himself in that group. Which, I guess he does…

He said “All guys want to sleep around. It’s in OUR dna.” then he adds “Girls sleep around too. THEY just act like the victim…” With the “OUR” and the “THEY” indicating separate groups. With him included in the “OUR”

But, since Jean looks female now, and Jean appears to be in the same room, they would most likely dismiss it as a slip of the tongue or them mishearing it. But, it would nag at them. And with enough of his slip ups, they would add together to form a strange feeling of doubt.

Especially how he keeps knowing their names, as well as little details about them, that a new GF probably would not know. Of course they could dismiss some of it to Jeannie hearing about it from “Jean.” But when it starts building up…

He better hope no one there has a genie who might get asked to find out what is up with Jeannie!

Or that Rodge doesn’t slip up and call him by name or something. Like he almost did earlier! Lets hope he doesn’t drink too much punch!

Jean just included married guys in his list of humans who don’t want to sleep around, at least with the opposite sex. That’s kind of a funny exception, but it is consistent with what Debbie said in last week’s comic about Jean sleeping with “most of the single women. As irresponsible Jean is in most things, this seems to be an exception. Apparently Jean really believes in marriage–maybe we even get a hint here that he was thinking of marrying Belle. We could even have a Freudian slip here–surely Jean isn’t stupid enough to actually believe that there are no married men who sleep around. But Jean is really talking about Jean here, and that could be exactly how she sees herself.

Whatever Jean’s standards or lack of them are, there’s a definite plot point here. Maybe two: Jean didn’t know Tina was the chief editor’s daughter until now, and the chief editor may not know (yet) that Jean slept with Tina. But as angry as Debbie and Tina look by the last panel, if the Jean’s editor didn’t know, he will soon.

And if this were EGS and Susan was anywhere around, it would be hammer time.

Welp, Before Susan’s awakening she used her hammers to defend Tedd. And Dan’s avatar switched genders one, from male to female, to evade the hammer. So…. the hammers work on male only, and being transformed would prevent them.

Also, any male looking androgynus enough would be protected.

But yeah, Hammers just stopped working, since Jerry the immortal had to be reborn.

I don’t think she’s wrong, to be honest, even if she’s, as everyone said already, digging her own grave. It’s just that girl etiquette implies that the girl is always the dumped and the guy the jerk who dumped her… or that only the guy is at fault.
As a girl who dates girls, I often found myself in that conundrum: to my friends, I had been dumped and to the other girl’s friends, I was the jerk. Honestly, we girls are that complicated.

Robert, it’s not wrong to be honest, but (a) there’s a time and a place for honesty, and this isn’t it, plus, (b) you can be honest without being callous about it. Jeannie’s phrasing leaves a lot to be desired.

So, technically, she’s not absolutely wrong but it’s a dumb thing to say and a really bad way of putting it.

And she IS wrong to imply that her statements apply equally to everyone. She’s speaking for herself, but that’s just her opinion; a lot of guys would disagree. (I’m thinking Neil, here.)

Yeah, Jean is right, but he is saying it the wrong way to the wrong people. His character flaws are being insensitive, not too bright, not knowing when to STFU, and being a player, so he just can not help himself.

Maybe he will learn, but that would make this strip a little less interesting!

Jean is only partly right. It is very common for both guys and gals to “sleep around” – but it’s not universal, i.e. not ALL guys or gals sleep around. There are plenty who realize that physical intimacy is inextricably linked with real emotional intimacy and decide that they don’t want to commit that part of themselves to someone casually.

Among those guys and gals who DO sleep around – yeah – the guy usually gets blamed for it even when he is the one being dumped. For a guy to admit that he was not “man enough to hold on to her”, i.e. got dumped might be considered a strike against his masculinity so he will not speak up to defend himself from accusations that he was the dumper. If he does the dumping he also doesn’t defend himself much or ask for sympathy because needing help to defend himself against the accusations is seen as weakness. Guys seldom play the victim card – to do so is seen as weak Gals are taught to do it and are free to ask their friends to support them and give them sympathy.

Guys are more likely to play the “psycho bitch” card so when she really is the problem people dismiss it as him just posturing. If she cheats on him and he complains or dumps her he gets accused of of trying to apply a double standard – under the assumption that all guys cheat – even if he was faithful.

Putting the blame on other people is easier than making your ego or you pride face your own failer.
Wars have been fought over saving face in the past as well. Human’s are not a totally enlightened species sadly.

Dammit. Why exactly Jean is supposed to be in the wrong here?
Unless you believe that all premarital sex is wrong, and any guy who was sex with single woman must shotgun-marry her to protect her honour, their complains have no leg to stand on.
Mainstream American society accepted premarital sex as okay.

Its just girls being girls.
“He’s SUCH a jerk”
“Yeah, what an asshole!”
“Lets find ourselves another, even bigger asshole!”
“Yeah! Badboys are so dreamy!”

When you go out on a limb with a comment like that, you don’t have much room to complain when someone saws it off behind you.

You have the right to express yourself as you please. However, that does not extend to getting automatic respect for whatever you said. Especially when what you said suggests that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. So complaining because a response is in “bad taste” is pretty much laughable.

> It’s also in bad taste tell someone you’re “sorry to hear that” about their beliefs, like they have a disease.

Well, I meant it in two ways:

1) Not knowing beforehand if you’re sexually compatible with your spouse can be a recipe for a disastrous marriage, regardless of whether or not it ends in divorce.
2) This one’s going to be controversial, but you brought up beliefs, so I’m not going to shy away from sharing what I believe. I feel sorry for people who were brainwashed as children to believe in fairy tales. I consider force-feeding religion to your kids to be a form of abuse. Do you not feel sorry for children who were psychologically abused by their parents?

>> 1) Not knowing beforehand if you’re sexually compatible with your spouse can be a recipe for a disastrous marriage, regardless of whether or not it ends in divorce.
This is observably false. High n-of pre-marital partners directly correlates with divorce and failed marriage. And with the rate of divorces, and ease of filling for no-fault divorce, you cannot claim that virtually all disastrous marriages don’t end in divorce.

>> 2) This one’s going to be controversial, but you brought up beliefs, so I’m not going to shy away from sharing what I believe. I feel sorry for people who were brainwashed as children to believe in fairy tales. I consider force-feeding religion to your kids to be a form of abuse. Do you not feel sorry for children who were psychologically abused by their parents?
Religion is just meme. As in, self-replicating idea that exist in mind. Any idea, be it religious, political, and cultural should be judged in its own merit.
As far as meme goes, I’d take christianity, sikhism, or shintoism any time over any supposedly rational, but effectively quite crazy ideologies and worldviews.
Just because idea is not explicitly religious, it isn’t anymore logical, grounded in observable reality, or less of a fairy tale. I’ve not observed supposed rationalists behaving anymore rational than my parish priest. They’re worse. My parish priest merely makes unprovable claims, whereas “rationalists” routinely make claims that are observably false (reality is non-PC).

You are completely disregarding the actual reasons behind why premarital relationships and divorce correlate and making a blanket statement which uses the same kind of internally flawed reasoning that you’re complaining about. Worst of all, you’re claiming facts without giving support for them, which is a major no-no when it comes to making rational arguments.

The reason premarital relationships correlate with higher rates of divorce is because partners often ‘slide’ into marriage without discussing it, and thus the relative ‘costs’ of marriage increase. It’s notable that the negative effects of cohabitation on marriage are substantially reduced if the couple became engaged before cohabiting. This is because a lot of couples mistakenly assume that cohabitation is similar to marriage, even though cohabitation is far more ambiguous than marriage, and make the equally erroneous assumption that they don’t need to seriously discuss getting married beforehand.

That being said, while it is true that an idea being non-religious does not make it logical or grounded in observable facts, it is worth noting that no religions (at least none of the ones I am aware of, which includes all of the ones that you mentioned) are truly logical or grounded in observable facts. You clearly know this because otherwise you wouldn’t have referred to your parish priest making unprovable claims.

Your complaint that rationalists make claims that are observably false while your parish priest only makes claims that are unprovable completely misses the essential point – the fact that the rationalist claims can in fact be proven false in the first place. So it does not say good things about your own rationality that you would trust someone who makes unprovable claims over someone who has made claims which were subsequently proven false. Like it or not, a claim which can be proven false – even one which has been proven false – is going to be more useful than a claim which cannot be verified or falsified.

Now, that being said, it is true that many rationalists get things wrong. In fact, it takes a long time before being rational allows you to do anything besides make new and interesting mistakes. But at least these rationalists you criticize are making the effort to at least try, even though they fail. As the saying goes, fall seven times, stand up eight. Can you say the same about your parish priest?

Wow, you not argued against positions I didn’t take in both of your responses, but you then went on to rant about something entirely different from the topic of conversation. The sad thing is that I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling or not.

@jaimehlers
Yeah, pre-engagement cohabitation is bad. That does not contradict what I said.
>>Worst of all, you’re claiming facts without giving support for them, which is a major no-no when it comes to making rational arguments.
Try: Jay Teachman, Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women
I don’t give up sources unless asked for, because most people don’t read them. You can search for summaries or refutations. Most interesting refutation I’ve found was “yes, its true, but I prefer wild girls. I don’t think divorce or serial monogamy is bad”

>>So it does not say good things about your own rationality that you would trust someone who makes unprovable claims over someone who has made claims which were subsequently proven false.
I do not trust my parish priest to lead me to heaven, if there’s even any. What made you think I am actually religious?
>>it is worth noting that no religions (at least none of the ones I am aware of, which includes all of the ones that you mentioned) are truly logical or grounded in observable facts
The point of unprovable claims is to give you plausible deniability to believe something that’s convenient to you. Not to convince you of nature of reality. Religions aren’t supposed to provable – that like people who don’t even play vidja complaining Doom has too much violence.
“Jesus died for you!” – “well, it COULD be true. I like singing. Lets sing carols.”
“We have purged the kulaks comrades!” – “Great, now we’re literally starving”
I do not care that my sports team isn’t objectively correct either. That’s not a point of sport team. The point is to entertain me, and to get endorphin rush when they win.

We can spend all week can arguing whether Isis or Stalin are worse. No point in bothering.

We are here to enjoy this web comic and to discuss it in semi-mature or at least non-obnoxious ways. And when you manage to have one of the site’s contributor/manager/moderators call you out on it and not know if you are trolls or are being serious, you have failed at that!!!

@LeadFootRT
I was enjoying the show.
Someone started to share his belief.
Mods shares his belief, while lampshading that he knows they’ll be considered controversial.
Someone disagrees and points out that I didn’t back my opinions.
I provide sources in response, elaborate some more.
LeadFootRT is shocked and appalled that I shared my belief.

Yes, topic drifted to religion. I don’t see how its my fault, given that mod said out of blue that religion is abuse.

Interesting that the clear assertion Robert makes is that one must be brainwashed into thinking premarital sex is not a good idea. I personally know a great many smart and extremely well educated folks – PhD’s etc – both religious and non-religious who have come to that conclusion on their own. (I work with and socialize with the aforementioned folks) Most of them did so based on their own observations about the effects it has had on their friends and acquaintances. I also know a lot of folks who think it’s no big deal. We have lively discussions about why we believe what we do, but at the end of the day we don’t call names or imply that the other people who disagree with us are stupid or crazy. We agree to disagree. My personal belief is that we should respect the rights of others to believe what they choose and be able discuss why we believe what we do in a respectful manner.
For some reason it reminds me of the video where Penn Jillette is ripping on practically everyone he disagrees with but shares a story of when someone gave him a Bible. He was genuinely touched that the person cared enough to try to share something they valued with him. He is pretty famous for being an adamant agnostic – of not atheist – but he respected the person who felt strongly enough about their belief to share it respectfully with him. The person simply offered him a Bible saying that they thought it was a good thing that would benefit him, not “here’s a bible and you will burn in hell if you don’t read it”.
We need to be civil. I’ve seen far too many religious people who are self-righteous in condemning non-religious folks and at least as many, if not more non-religious folks who mock and disrespect anyone who is religious – mostly because they don’t agree with them.
How about a little bit more along the lines of
“Here’s what I believe and why I believe it”
“ok – i disagree – here’s what I believe and why I believe it”
“I see – well – I see we disagree but I respect you and your right to believe what you choose”
“Well – then let’s agree to disagree and respect each others right to choose what to believe- and by the way thanks for caring enough about me and trusting me enough to share”
“Likewise”

> it’s about cynically using them for an ulterior motive and then casually discarding them like a dirty tissue once they’ve served their purpose

And we have no evidence that Jean is guilty of this. The ladies in this scene are accusing him of this, but Jean’s line in panel 2 muddies those waters considerably. It’s entirely possible that he’s just a playboy, and not a douchebag.

@Robert: Agreed, it’s an accusation, but since this is a comic, not a court case, it seems unlikely that we’ll get any conclusive evidence one way or the other, so we have to go with what we have.

So far, (based on prior behavior exhibited) Jean’s credibility seems pretty low, and the fact that multiple women seem to be agreeing on the particulars would seem to indicate that they aren’t making this up. So it seems like the evidence is stronger against him.

Yes, he did make one comment that could be read the other way, but consider that it doesn’t actually contradict the accusations. Being loud when you’re drunk doesn’t prove that he WASN’T using her. It’s just kind of a snarky comeback that doesn’t address the point.

So I think, on the balance here, Jean still isn’t looking good. Of course, that could change. (shrug)

Of course, Jeannie is free to express any opinion she wants… whether it’s factual or not. But there are plenty of times when it’s a lot smarter to keep quiet.

And as a side note, Jean is definitely wrong in the factual sense about DNA and behavior – there are way too many exceptions. She’s projecting her attitudes onto everyone else. Which is exactly what a lot of people do.

Aye. AFAIK it seems that Jean was not using them for ulterior motives and just wanted a fling in bed with each of them. Not that “love em and leave em” is a virtue, mind you, but having sex with them was the goal unto itself, not a means to some other goal.

You (and Robert) are both assuming the Jean is telling the truth, and she (Tina?) isn’t.

I’m more inclined to give HER the benefit of the doubt, because we’ve seen Jean pull sneaky, manipulative stuff before, as well as falsely dismiss things. Whereas Tina hasn’t given us any reason to disbelieve her story. The fact that Jean brushes it off, is meaningless. Of course he would say that, he’s a self-centered jerk; nothing’s ever his fault.

Jean can deny things if he wants, but given his previous behavior, he’s not very credible.

As far a Jean is concerned, Jean is about doing what Jean want to do and Jean doesn’t have any real good friends as such. Jean is the kind of person, if it served his goal or needs at the time, he the kind of person that could double cross Neil too and probably laugh about that too. The only reason that he hangs around Neil is probably because he the only guy that will tolerate Jean antic and such. Jean is kind of like a Leach that suck off of people.

Neil is the the one that the real friend here and certainly he knows who Jean is and generally put up with Jean antic’s.

As far as religion goes: Pass yourself off as Christian or some other religion from some other faith. More people have died in the name of some religion than just about any other thing. People hide doing evil in the name of GOD and there evil agenda’s and ulterior motives and such.

However when you have people who want to do good and are Men and Women of good will and such and also need the authority and a foundation on which to work from, Christianity and what the Bible really says and is properly interpreted, then all bet are off to Christianity being a bad thing. When it done properly, it establishes a Net Worth of individuals, how your suppose to treat other people and how they should expect to be treated. Whether not they do is beside the point. The US Constitution is based on those principals too, but, since then, it has been mis-used and subverted too be people who truth and doing what right or following NATURAL LAW. There is such a thing as NATURAL LAWS and ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because if there wasn’t any such thing, there would be no Universe to live in or no Planet Earth. If you still don’t believe there is such a thing, then go jump off the Empire State Building and see what happens. See if NATURAL LAWS ABSOLUTE TRUTH don’t just kick in and you fail to your death, unless something intervenes to block the ultimate results of your action of jumping off the building. Most people don’t recognize these ABSOLUTE, because, there appears to be no emidiate results to there action.

Unfortunately, Natural Law and Absolute Truth run into the is/ought fallacy–Natural Law is about what IS, not about what Should Be. Natural Law, for example, does not tell us not to hunt prey species to extinction, except after the fact by us having to suffer their absence. Natural Law also tells us to look out for our in-group above the out-group–i.e. things that benefit those closest to you are more important than benefits to humankind as a whole (e.g. you would choose to save a loved one over saving multiple strangers if faced with an either/or dilemma). That which is Natural is not necessarily that which is Ethical.

If Rodge wasn’t Jean’s double here, I would swear that Jeannie was about to out himself in a misunderstood way…

He keeps slipping up, by speaking as a guy, and by knowing too much about these girls. If they would somehow come to doubt Rodge as being Jean, say… by him obviously not knowing what he should know, or acting in a way that proves him not to be Jean, they might add 2+2 and realize who Jeannie really is, and that some changes have been made in his lifestyle!

He isn’t surrounded by, and pissing off a group of women, so yeah I am sure he is doing better!

But. how is he holding up as being someone he is not, in front of Jean’s boss. And without having the knowledge to do it. I can see him “winging it.” And being just as good at it as he is being ambitious and dedicated at his job!

Oh. the possibilities! Such a wonderful comedic set up! Well done CD! I can’t wait to see how you play this all out!

I love how you set these situations up. It really is harder than it looks. I keep respecting your writing skills more and more!

Maybe, but even if you are drunk and being loud, someone else doing it is still annoying. And we do not know what type of drunk he is. All we have seen of Jeannie drinking is that moonshine. And that did not end very well! But he wasn’t being loud, just sneezey!

I wonder how strongly Jean will keep thinking that here. It could comically come back to bite ‘her’ rosy ass someday, feeling the girls’ side of being an dumpee. No one would enjoy that feeling.

Granted, it takes both the woman and man to engage with sex. Women aren’t fully innocent when they do it willingly with a guy. Jean here just acts like ‘she’s’ untouchable or too good to deal with negative consequences to being loose or disrespectful like this. Too much hubristic ego in ‘her’ brain.

Seeing so far how Jean’s plans tend to go, it’s kinda hit or miss. So there’s a 50/50 chance that Jean could get ‘her’ up-comings for ‘her’ obnoxious behaviour or Jean could conjure some magical revenge on those who do the screwing.

One (or all) of the three women seducing Rodge would be a fine complication. What would make it sublime if Belle shows up to give Jean a nice surprise and catches “Jean” with them–beyond sublime if Jeanie is with them. That could even end up with Jeanie finally telling the truth to Belle–so much the better if he proves that truth in front of the Dumped Sisters.

WOW way to get them all pissed at you at once. Jean clearly needs to learn what the meaning of Tact is. He is like a Bull in a china shop when he opens his mouth.
If these were guys he would get a beat down but since they are women i am guessing one or more of them are going to go out of their way to screw up his life some how.
Between Jeanie/Jean and Rodger/jean my bet is his job is toast ill go 8/10 on that.

I’m not saying ‘all guys sleep around’ but then Jean isn’t either (He/she actually said “All guys want to sleep around.” ). Neither statement is strictly true but both guys and girls DO sleep around and many more of both “want” to sleep around so the idea that it’s part of our species nature isn’t far off.

BTW isn’t anybody going to comment on what was said in the first 2 panels?

Jean did have a long term girlfriend – Belle Lows – and we saw no one else at the time so we know he was capable of being in a committed relationship. Maybe to him sleeping around is just part of the process of looking for the right girl and some one who spent “all night yelling and drunk” isn’t his idea of the right girl?

Belle may be Jean’s Ms. Right, but it’s doubtful if Jean will ever be Belle’s Ms. Right, despite Neil’s censored fantasy way back when in #22. And here are two references to Jean’s pre-bottle position on bedroom playmates:

So it looks to me at that point Jean may have decided Belle was Ms. Right, but not that he should give up on all the Ms. Right Nows yet. After seeing Belle with another guy, and hearing her talk about him and how “Jean would be doing the same thing,” perhaps Jean’s attitude changed or began to change. But I’m not sure that was more True Love than missing the toy he can’t play with any more.

It’s been nice knowing you, Jean. We’ll have a nice service in your honor, but don’t worry, it won’t be open casket.
At least Jean dies in the most fitting manner: ripped apart into pieces by a mob of hot angry women.

Technically speaking, Jean is right. It is in the primal male instinct to “sleep around”, to mate with as many viable females as possible in order to ensure one’s genetic legacy. However, I’d like to think to think that well over ten thousand years of culture, civilization and evolution has dulled that instinct to the point that it is easily suppressed and overcome.

I’d like to think so, anyway. Reality has a habit of disappointment me.

However,, Jean is incorrect about females having that same instinct. That particular drive applies ony to the male instinct. Some females DO sleep around, but I think that’s more choice than succumbing to primal instinct (technically, it’s a choice for the men that do, too. It just they have a an excuse, unfortunately) No, the female equivalent instinct is to choose the strongest, fittest, male to mate with to ensure superior offspring. Again, over 10,000 years worth of progress has dulled this instinct, too…or at least changed the definition of “strongest” and “fittest”.

Actually, that “strongest, fittest male” instinct WOULD cause females to sleep around long term. It’s just that for male, “as many as possible” can be more than one per day, while for female, “as many as possible” is one per ten months, meaning she needs to be more careful in choosing.

Note: Some females didn’t upgraded their definition of “fittest” and are still going for strongest males. Some did and are now going for males with thickest wallets.

I find that a lot of people’s desires have prerequisites. For example, if you take a guy’s desire to have sex with some woman. Most guys have prerequisites that they find her at least somewhat attractive (if sober) and that she agrees enough that they aren’t going to be arrested for the act. Also the overwhelming majority of guys have a prerequisite that she has a pulse.

As a guy, I can’t be certain, but it’s always appeared that women, on average, have a somewhat larger and/or less trivial prerequisite list for wanting to have sex than the average guy does (but you can definitely find a specific girl with less of a prereq list than a specific guy, if you look hard enough and get honest answers).

Either way, either gender, once all prereqs are checked off, degree of “full speed ahead” seems mainly based on confidence/shyness (and are still some lingering social conditioning factors that seem to slow women down a bit at times too).

So I think Jean fails to recognize his own prerequisite list (past, “is she hot”-type prereq) and thus fails to recognize others’ lists as well.

I don’t think guys check woman pulse before having sex. They do, however, usually check if she’s breathing and has body temperature in reasonable range.

Also, drunk men don’t sleep with women they don’t find attractive. It’s just that their judgment about what is attractive is impaired similarly to their judgment of what direction is down and what is straight line.

I was just re-reading the week post. In the first frame, Jeanie or Jean really didn’t know that Tina was the Editors Daughter, she seemed to be surprised even at this late date that Tina is the Editors Daughter. Jeanie wasn’t very tactful with the way she handled it, but, that Jeanie doing what Jeanie does. So he didn’t use Tina to get his job from his boss the Editor of the Magazine, but, Tina thought that was his motive.

Well, anyway, Jeanie or Jean is still a self-centered jerk and he not quit as bad as I first thought, but, he still not a very good person.

Jean is a jerk but I don’t think he hides his nature so why would he have to make up for it. He would be apologizing for being him self. That makes no sense.
People can judge him by their standards but there is no reason he has to live up to them. Unless he had promised someone he would. Jean is just being Jean.

Being a womanizer and being a murder is not a fair comparison. I for one don’t believe woman are helpless victims in a bad Romance. It is buyer beware clearly they didn’t do the background checks. Or maybe they did and ignored the warning signs.
A much better comparison would be womanizer to women that use guys like a ATM machine.
Should those women be made to suffer for using men? I personally don’t think so. Because like in the first case the guys can say no.

I think she’s wrong. For one thing, asexual people. For another, some people actually do tend toward monogamy. I’m… definitely not one of them, personally, given that I’ve been unhappy with every closed, mono relationship I’ve had. Also, girl here, so… potato?

I’m wondering why my last comment is awaiting moderation. It has no dirty words, no attacks on any religion, and not even a reference to Trump.

Anyway, I feel obligated to do my part to make sure this strip becomes the reigning Champion of Comments.

Now, a thought about Tina: We don’t know if Tina was yelling at Jean, or if Tina was just too loud for Jean’s taste. Maybe both, although Tina hasn’t been yelling–yet. Yelling requires at least bold print, and should use a larger font if there’s room for it. A meaner-looking font for angry yelling is nice, and of course some dingbats to stand in for curse words. I think the last is a fine tradition in comics, because it allows the reader to imagine worse curse words than the author had in mind, if he or she actually nad any in mind. Look at some classic Beetle Bailey strips for some splendid cursing dingbats.

Complaining about Tina’s drinking seems a bit much, though, what with Jean getting in trouble by drinking (illegal) moonshine (and flashing Bucktooth Willy to get it). I wonder if poor Araceli recovered from her moonshined kiss.

Tina seems to have at least raised her voice, going by the slightly larger font size and the “?!” at the end of her hostile question in panel two. As for dingbat cursewords, well, to each their own, but personally they’re just annoying to me, all I mentally “hear” from that is Qbert speech.

On Tina’s drinking, it seems it was more the combination of it and the yelling that got to Jean. Could be that Tina is just a loud, abrasive, and confrontational drunk, and Jeannie seems to be implying Tina spent a fair amount of time like that.

If I was writing this strip, I would give Tina some serious father issues. Daddy seems to be just as much of a horndog as Jean, and that would have made it difficult to relate to his daughter. I got the feeling her Dad would be very happy if Jean was his son. And if Tina has no brothers, the issues multiply.

I didn’t notice before that “You wanna go, bitch?!” in the second panel was in a slightly larger font, about the relative difference between 12-point and 14-point, but it was impossible to miss “JEAN, YOU DOG!” five strips ago; it was double-sized. That was yelling. Tina’s upset with Jean, but she’s not out of control. I guess that could change with the next strip, but for now, Tina’s showing a lot more class than Jean is. Having had all too much experience living with loud drunks, I really don’t picture Tina as being one of them.

Actually Marika’s comment is pretty much how I read Jeanie’s meaning about being drunk and yelling regarding Tina. Since Jean didn’t know that his boss is Tina’s father, I figured he left as she may issues like insecurity or jealousy that he couldn’t deal with. That’s just a guess though.

Some comments are automaticly flagged for moderation, if specific words are used, the website flags the comment as potential AD or SPAM, or if there’s multiple links in the comment. As soon as Robert or I log onto the website, we check the moderated comments and verify it’s ok to post.

SailorSun.org and I Dream in of a Jeanie Bottle is NOT in the same universe.
SailorSun.org is meant to be a comic universe where Helixes, TG, and weird things exist, while Jeanie Bottle is meant to be more in our own version of the world.

That being said… Will Bay and Honey ever cameo in this comic, as well as other comic characters? Well, go back to 408 to 410 for that answer.

From what I can gather from everyone is Jean has a bit of problem with being a “good guy” sleeping around, self centered, and not mindful of others feeling, but at the same time she is not tactful or cunning she has never had ulterior motives for most things and when she does figuring them out is a matter of knowing what she knows which is simple enough. In this case where all these women hating him for sleeping around I think is Jean just looking for a girl that’s right for him but not considering if she does what’s right for them that’s his mindless selfishness. Jean’s “current” girlfriend is someone I believe he’s found that she thinks is her longterm partner but is unwilling to accept that life has dealt her a hand that says otherwise is refusing to let go. Thus Jean’s tendency to dig herself into the deepest hole possible hurting herself and other along the way and always making it worse when trying to fix it.

Now as far these girls go they are hurt and are just being as women are connecting information together till it makes sense, while this reasonable it may or may not be true, so initially when approaching Jeanie they’re just looking out for her but now that Jeanie has gone and done a very Jean thing instead of a female thing they might see her as an enemy, threat, or a fool and in all case will be angry with her. Jean will tell herself that they’re all in the wrong in order to eliminate guilt and proceed to do more Jean things to aggravate them

Ok, so. Since Jean does mention DNA, one shoudl assue she’s talking exclusively from an etological perspective, in which case she’s half-right.

Guys sleeping with multiple women IS adaptative, from a merely etologcal perspective, as it ensured that the species would survive. Women, however, wouldn’t benefit from multiple partners, so from a merely etological perspective, female want just one parter, the strongest one.

That’s in regards to DNA. However, societal biases would modify that thru socialization. I think she’s not wrong about her perspective, in USA society nowadays. Except that has nothing to do with DNA, and all to do with culture.